Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism

Published:Trudovaya PravdaNo. 19, June 19, 1914.

      Published according to the text inTrudovaya Pravda.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 20,

      pages372-374.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe FinebergTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Marxistshave repeatedly spoken about the importance of the
free mobilisation (i.e., the buying, selling and mortgaging) of peasant
land. This real and, practical problem affords a striking illustration of
the petty-bourgeois and evenpositively reactionarycharacter of
our Narodniks.

AllNarodniks, from the semi-Cadets ofRusskoye Bogatstvo(“Social-Cadets” as Chernov, Vikhlayev and similar people once rightly
called them) to the ultra-“Left” Narodniks ofStoikaya Mysl, are
opposed to the free mobilisation of peasant land in general, and of
allotment land in particular.

TheMarxists, however, openly state in theirProgrammethat
they will “always and invariably oppose any attempt to check the
course of economic progress”.

Theeconomic development of Russia, as of the whole world, proceeds
from feudalism to capitalism, and through large-scale, machine, capitalist
production to socialism.

Pipe-dreamingabout a “different” way to socialism other than that
which leads, through thefurtherdevelopment of capitalism,
through large-scale, machine,capitalistproduction, is, in
Russia, characteristic either of the liberal gentlemen, or of the backward,
petty proprietors (the petty bourgeoisie). These dreams, which still clog
the brains of the Left Narodniks, merely reflect the backwardness
(reactionary nature) and feebleness of the petty bourgeoisie.

Class-consciousworkers all over the world, Russia included, are
becoming more and more convinced of the correctness of Marxism, for life
itself is proving to them that only large-scale, machine production rouses
the workers, enlightens and organises them, and creates theobjectiveconditions for amassmovement.

WhenPut Pravdyreaffirmed the well-known Marxist axiom that
capitalism isprogressiveas compared with
			      feudalism,[1]and that the idea of checking the development of capitalism is a utopia,
most absurd, reactionary, and harmful to the working people,
Mr. N. Rakitnikov, the Left Narodnik (inSmelaya MyslNo. 7),
accusedPut Pravdyof having undertaken the “not very honourable
task of putting a gloss upon the capitalist noose”.

Anyoneinterested in Marxism and in the experience of the international
working-class movement would do well to pander over this! One rarely meets
with such amazing ignorance of Marxism as that displayed by
Mr. N. Rakitnikov and the Left Narodniks, except perhaps among bourgeois
economists.

Canit be that Mr. Rakitnikov has not readCapital, orThe
Poverty of Philosophy, orThe Communist Manifesto? If he has
not, then it is pointless to talk about socialism. That will be a
ridiculous waste of time.

Ifhe has read them, then he ought to know that thefundamentalidea running throughallMarx’s works, an
idea which since Marx has been confirmed in all countries, is that
capitalism isprogressiveas compared with feudalism. It is in
this sense that Marx and all Marxists “put a gloss” (to use Rakitnikov’s
clumsy and stupid expression) “upon the capitalist noose”!

Onlyanarchists or petty-bourgeois, who do not under stand the
conditions of historical development, can say:
a feudal noose or a capitalist one—it makes no difference, for both are
nooses! That means confining oneself tocondemnation, and failing
to understand theobjectivecourse of economic development.

Condemnationmeans our subjective dissatisfaction. The objective course
of feudalism’s evolution into capitalism enablesmillionsof
working people—thanks to the growth of cities, railways, large factories
and the migration of workers—toescapefrom a condition of
feudal torpor. Capitalism itself rouses and organises them.

Bothfeudalism and capitalism oppress the workers and strive to keep
them in ignorance. But feudalismcankeep,andfor centurieshas kept, millions of peasants in a down trodden
state (for example, in Russia from the ninth to the nineteenth century, in
China for even more centuries). But capitalismcannotkeep the
workers in a state of immobility, torpor, downtroddenness and ignorance.

Thecenturies of feudalism were centuries of torpor for the working
people.

Thedecades of capitalism have roused millions of wage-workers.

Yourfailure to understand this, gentlemen of the Left Narodnik
fraternity, shows that you do not understand a thing about socialism, or
that you are converting socialism from a struggle of millions engendered by
objective conditions into a benevolent old gentleman’s fairy-tale!

Toadvocate the slightestrestriction of the freedomto
mobilise allotment landactuallyamounts to becoming a
reactionary, an abettor of the feudalists.

Restrictionof the freedom to mobilise allotment landretardseconomic development,hindersthe formation, growth, awakening and
organisation of the wage-worker class,worsensthe conditions of
the workers and peasants, andincreasesthe influence of the
feudalists.

ThePeshekhonovs and Rakitnikovs arein factabettors of
precisely these “categories”, when they advocate restriction of the
freedom to mobilise peasant land.

[1]Seepp. 298–301 of this volume—Ed.